Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Balls

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: Balls

#71

Post by discodave »

Ok, so the math for everybody.

Google spent 12.5B. Motorola has 3B in cash. The stock market thought motorola was worth around 6-7B incl cash (assuming they weren't just factoring in a takeover already).

So google really paid around 6B for the patents, they don't have to do anything to motorola. They can sell all or parts of it, maybe muck around with some of the parts of Motorola other than cell phones. But either way the Nortel auction was 4.5B for JUST patents while google gets a mobile electronics company + patents for its 12B.

Re: Balls

#72

Post by fredoliveira »

divtxt wrote: post #35
divtxt wrote: post #26

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension: - Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he…

To clarify: a biased Gruber article may actually have valid points. The problem is that Gruber will only include pro-Apple points. For example, note that Gruber does NOT point out how the acquisition will allow Google to do Apple-style seamless hardware/software design. edit: Android -> Google as pointed out by m_eiman below

The interesting bit is that on the conference call they did say that that was actually not the plan (most likely to keep the other android partners comfortable). Supposedly their process for Android remains the same and Motorola will be on the same footing as everyone else when it comes to software access.

This says that the deal was 100% about patents and nothing else, which in turn says it wasn't that great of a deal in the first place (considering as they paid a big premium for the patent portfolio).

But assuming that they break their promise to partners and do what apple does too by designing both hardware and software together: it would be a good thing for Google as a phone maker, but a nail on the "Android as open" coffin. I don't think they'll be able to risk a move like this - angering their partners and probably breaking Android up -, which just means that the actual impact this will have on the quality of phones coming from Google and Android as a mobile OS is slim to none.

Re: Balls

#73

Post by bane »

divtxt wrote: post #26

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension: - Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he…

It's better to treat Gruber like a tool and stop giving him attention. Don't submit his posts to HN, don't upvote them, don't discuss them (here I am doing just that so make of that what you will)

In other words, the only reason some people are well known is that they're well known. That kind of fame burns out quickly once people stop paying attention.

don't feed the troll!

Re: Balls

#74

Post by xefer »

divtxt wrote: post #26

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension: - Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he…

Gruber is part of an interesting phenomenon that has emerged over the past few years: supporting companies (and reviling their 'opponents') with the same passion that people normally reserve for sports teams.

Re: Balls

#75

Post by amatheus »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #16
GHFigs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely." I don't see how you're getting a reversal out of that. Talking about Motorola's problems is only to highlight that Google would not have spent $12.5 billion on the company if not for the patent issues.

Because Gruber's summary of the entire story is "I think Apple and Microsoft probably feel pretty good, competitively, about having forced Google into spending $12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management", which ignores the single most salient factor in the deal. Ultimately, Gruber would like us to believe that, all things aside, Google has bo…

Frankly, I can't understand what's your point with this phrase. I think he obviously meant Google paid 12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management - _only for the patents_. He's not ignoring the most salient factor in the deal; he's just reaffirming that, to get to the patents, Google paid 12.5 billion for the whole, including the bad parts that he's highlighting.

Re: Balls

#76

Post by palebluedot »

The price of $12.5B is prior to discounting the $3B+ in cash the MMI is holding. A lot of emphasis is placed on the '$12.5B' value in this article, without taking into consideration that this is really 25% higher than the effective price of $9.5B, once you back out the cash.

Re: Balls

#77

Post by esmevane »

oemera wrote: post #70
mayanksinghal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been stated a lot of times on HN, but anyways :) 1. I think you are mixing deals 2. GOOG accepting MS offer would have been dumb. Google wanted the patents to avoid lawsuits from MS-Apple. Teaming up with them would have meant that these patents are useless against them (I assume that Apple/MS would not have said - okay we team up for now, but you can sue us using these patents later). 3. I am not sure, but…

First of all sorry I wasn't aware that this has been stated a lot here. I'm not sure if Google is really the hero at this point like other commenters are stating here. Maybe they bought 3 times more patents than MS/Apple but it's not clear to me if all of those are really interesting in this fight. I have to admit that I just don't like the Google way here. Saying that patent system sucks and and patents are bad but…

The bottom line is, the only way to avoid getting defenestrated in patent disputes in court, is to have a portfolio. There was no choice if Google wanted to protect their interests. Logically, they had to do something.

As said previously, this acquisition hits a trifecta of benefits, not just a large and Android-relevant patent portfolio. Google can now directly create Android pure phones to their intended specifications, and they have tremendous talent and resources at their disposal.

Patents were huge, but to look at this issue and only see the patents is a logical foible.

Re: Balls

#78

Post by roc »

xefer wrote: post #74
divtxt wrote: post #26

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension: - Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he…

Gruber is part of an interesting phenomenon that has emerged over the past few years: supporting companies (and reviling their 'opponents') with the same passion that people normally reserve for sports teams.

If by 'past few years' you mean 'past 20-30 years', then I agree.

Re: Balls

#79

Post by watty »

roc wrote: post #78
xefer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gruber is part of an interesting phenomenon that has emerged over the past few years: supporting companies (and reviling their 'opponents') with the same passion that people normally reserve for sports teams.

If by 'past few years' you mean 'past 20-30 years', then I agree.

I'm too young to refute your point but can you give examples of pre-internet companies that had fan bases as rabid as Apple and Android?

Re: Balls

#80

Post by sunchild »

divtxt wrote: post #26

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension: - Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he…

The point of the article (which is secondarily a hit on Dan Lyons) is that Motorola had Google over a $13B barrel – the exact opposite conclusion to Dan Lyons' piece. As a kind of aside, Gruber is defending M.G. Seigler against ad hominem attack by going ad hominem on Dan Lyons.
Post reply on HN